NOTE: Where it is feasible, a
syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in
connection with this case, at the time the opinion is
issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of
the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions
for the convenience of the reader.See United States
v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321,
337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES

LOCKHART v. UNITED STATES
et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 04881. Argued November
2, 2005Decided December 7, 2005

In 2002, the Government began withholding a
portion of petitioners Social Security payments to offset
his debt on federally reinsured student loans that were more
than 10 years overdue. Petitioner sued, arguing that the
offset was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations of the
Debt Collection Act of 1982, 31 U.S.C. §
3716(e)(1). The Social Security Act generally exempts
benefits from attachment or other legal process, 42 U.S.C. §
407(a), and provides that [n]o other provision of law
may be construed to modify this section
except to the extent that it does so by express
reference, §407(b). The Higher Education Technical
Amendments of 1991 eliminated time limitations on suits to
collect student loans, 20 U.S.C. §
1091a(a)(2)(D). In 1996, the Debt Collection Improvement
Act subjected Social Security benefits to offset,
[n]otwithstanding [§407], 31 U.S.C. §
3716(c)(3)(A)(i). The District Court dismissed
petitioners complaint, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The United States may
offset Social Security benefits to collect a student loan debt
that has been outstanding for over 10 years.
Pp. 35.

(b) The
Higher Education Technical Amendments remove the 10-year limit
that would otherwise bar offsetting petitioners Social
Security benefits to pay off his student loan debt. Debt
collection by Social Security offset was not authorized until
five years after this abrogation of time limits, but the plain
meaning of the Higher Education Technical Amendments must be
given effect even though Congress may not have foreseen all of
its consequences, Union Bank v. Wolas,502 U.S. 151, 158.
Though the Higher Education Technical Amendments, unlike the
Debt Collection Improvement Act, do not explicitly mention
§407, an express reference is only required to authorize
attachment in the first place. Pp. 34.

(c) Though
the Debt Collection Improvement Act retained the Debt
Collection Acts general 10-year bar on offset authority,
the Higher Education Technical Amendments retain their effect
as a limited exception to the Debt Collection Act time bar in
the student loan context. The Court declines to read any
meaning into a failed 2004 congressional effort to amend the
latter Act to explicitly authorize offset of debts over 10
years old. See, e.g.,United States v.
Craft,535 U.S.
274, 287. Pp. 45.